ARCHIVED
 Smashy
Caveman with a banjo
Team Member
Joined: Jan 2012  OR, USA
 
 Posts: 3137 Feedback: 0% (0) |
Posted: 8/8/2012 6:09:49 PM
THE IMAGE ABOVE IS A PAID ADVERTISEMENT In this light, Korwin has proposed a Gun-Free-Zone Liability Act in Arizona, where any business that establishes a gun-free zone would be fully liable for the harm it causes.
|
|
|
103
Stealth Mode
Team Member
Joined: Sep 2006 FL, USA
Posts: 16798 Feedback: 100% (6) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/8/2012 6:10:36 PM
Nice!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2012 6:11:04 PM
Perfect.
|
|
|
|
Treadhead
Member
Team Member
Joined: Jun 2001 OR, USA
Posts: 12451 Feedback: 100% (56) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/8/2012 6:11:28 PM
Nice
|
|
|
|
KaiK
Gun Enthusiast
Team Member
Joined: Oct 2008 MS, USA
Posts: 1607 Feedback: 100% (26) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/8/2012 6:14:27 PM
Now that is a law I can get behind.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2012 6:19:41 PM
Originally Posted By Treadhead:
Nice |
|
|
Gravity_Tester
Misanthropic Anthropoid
Team Member
Joined: Apr 2005 AZ, USA
Posts: 17833 Feedback: 100% (4) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/8/2012 6:19:44 PM
That's reasonable. If they're going to insist that I forgo the ability to defend myself, they are, by default accepting the responsibiltiy for my safety. And I (and I'm sure the rest of the membership of the AZCDL) will happily write and call my representatives until they pass such a bill, even if it's just to make the calls stop.
 |
|
|
GC456
Have quad, will travel!
Team Member
Joined: Aug 2001 FL, USA
Posts: 10478 Feedback: 0% (0) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/8/2012 6:21:06 PM
Wow!
|
|
|
|
Smashy
Caveman with a banjo
Team Member
Joined: Jan 2012 OR, USA
Posts: 3138 Feedback: 0% (0) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/8/2012 6:21:16 PM
They have a fetish and a rampant hatred of guns. It’s called ‘hoplophobia’—a morbid fear of guns. This so-called political problem is actually a medical condition. The anti-rights crowd is afraid that if they had a gun, they’d shoot someone. So, they psychologically project this fear onto everyone else. Because they don’t trust themselves, they don’t trust their fellow man.”
Nice summary. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2012 6:25:15 PM
While I like the sentiment, it's their property and their rules. They can choose to post the sign, I can choose to go somewhere else.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2012 6:37:45 PM
Originally Posted By shadesofgrey: While I like the sentiment, it's their property and their rules. They can choose to post the sign, I can choose to go somewhere else. At the risk of my life? You want to do this, you assume the liability as I have stated for the last 20 years or more. Your actions should have consequences. I'm all about property rights and have been since I started as a security guard in the 1970's. You have the right to toss anyone off your property, however, if you conduct business to the general population, things change just a little. If your place catches on fire and people die, you'll get sued, right or wrong. Someone slips on your property, you'll get sued. You deny me the right to protect myself, you assume all liability for my safety. I get shot or killed in your "gun-free" zone and you fail to protect me, you'll get sued. You prevent me from being able to protect myself and you fail to, you are culpable. I or my family will fucking sue you. Private property rights open to public access has its limits.
This needs to go into effect and I've been saying this for dozens of years. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2012 6:38:32 PM
• Tasmania, Australia, 1996 (known as the Port Arthur massacre): Mentally deficient Martin Bryant served as the patsy for a suspected black op that killed 35. The infamous Australian gun buybacks followed, where the government confiscated virtually all firearms. The gun confiscation has done little but leave citizens defenseless against armed criminals.
• Oslo, Norway, 2011: In what may be another black op, Anders Breivik slays 69 students and instructors on Utoya Island. Beforehand, a bomb he allegedly detonated killed another eight, a total of 77 killed. Huh? Can someone explain this? Suspected black ops? |
|
|
|
ISED8U
ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Team Member
Joined: Jan 2005 AR, USA
Posts: 7582 Feedback: 100% (16) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/8/2012 6:40:32 PM
I hope this takes off.
|
|
|
oldschool63
No Beans in Chili
Team Member
Joined: Oct 2006 TX, USA
Posts: 19397 Feedback: 100% (18) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/8/2012 6:41:27 PM
 |
|
|
Couch-Commando
Member
Team Member
Joined: May 2005 AZ, USA
Posts: 24082 Feedback: 100% (1) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/8/2012 6:41:30 PM
[Last Edit: 8/8/2012 6:42:55 PM by Couch-Commando]
Originally Posted By shadesofgrey: While I like the sentiment, it's their property and their rules. They can choose to post the sign, I can choose to go somewhere else. 
|
|
|
|
Zaphod
Jus zis guy, you know?
Life Member
Joined: Mar 2001 MN, USA
Posts: 56027 Feedback: 100% (17) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/8/2012 6:42:07 PM
Originally Posted By sslocal:
Perfect. Ditto. Hope it catches on. Here at work they have the state-specified signs, and I've been too meek as the new guy to point out the stupidity of the whole idea... |
|
|
Angel_King
Never get shot with your own merchandise.
Team Member
Joined: Jan 2010 NY, USA
Posts: 1121 Feedback: 0% (0) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/8/2012 6:43:28 PM
Originally Posted By 951bulldog:
• Tasmania, Australia, 1996 (known as the Port Arthur massacre): Mentally deficient Martin Bryant served as the patsy for a suspected black op that killed 35. The infamous Australian gun buybacks followed, where the government confiscated virtually all firearms. The gun confiscation has done little but leave citizens defenseless against armed criminals. • Oslo, Norway, 2011: In what may be another black op, Anders Breivik slays 69 students and instructors on Utoya Island. Beforehand, a bomb he allegedly detonated killed another eight, a total of 77 killed. Huh? Can someone explain this? Suspected black ops? False flags I'd assume. |
|
|
SkilletsUSMC
0311, not a cook...
Team Member
Joined: Jun 2005 WA, USA
Posts: 17817 Feedback: 100% (27) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/8/2012 6:48:28 PM
It has always been my belief that most "no guns" business policies are only in place to shield them from liability––not that they care about guns pro or con.
I am fully behind this––even if it makes me some "commie" in other people's eyes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2012 6:51:09 PM
Originally Posted By shadesofgrey:
While I like the sentiment, it's their property and their rules. They can choose to post the sign, I can choose to go somewhere else. This, and if there is a mass shooting there, then the property owners can be held liable.. I'm OK with this. |
|
|
|
Veracity
Team Member
Team Member
Joined: Sep 2007 NY, USA
Posts: 6732 Feedback: 100% (7) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/8/2012 6:51:57 PM
Wow, good stuff.
|
|
|
Strongbow
A Boxer-Henry .45 caliber miracle
Team Member
Joined: Dec 2008 IN, USA
Posts: 12883 Feedback: 100% (18) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/8/2012 6:55:02 PM
[Last Edit: 8/8/2012 6:56:31 PM by Strongbow]
Originally Posted By rtech:
Originally Posted By shadesofgrey:
While I like the sentiment, it's their property and their rules. They can choose to post the sign, I can choose to go somewhere else. At the risk of my life? You want to do this, you assume the liability as I have stated for the last 20 years or more. Your actions should have consequences. I'm all about property rights and have been since I started as a security guard in the 1970's. You have the right to toss anyone off your property, however, if you conduct business to the general population, things change just a little. If your place catches on fire and people die, you'll get sued, right or wrong. Someone slips on your property, you'll get sued. You deny me the right to protect myself, you assume all liability for my safety. I get shot or killed in your "gun-free" zone and you fail to protect me, you'll get sued. You prevent me from being able to protect myself and you fail to, you are culpable. I or my family will fucking sue you. Private property rights open to public access has its limits. This needs to go into effect and I've been saying this for dozens of years. Should you be able to sue a bar owner for exposure to second-hand smoke? |
|
|
|
SkilletsUSMC
0311, not a cook...
Team Member
Joined: Jun 2005 WA, USA
Posts: 17818 Feedback: 100% (27) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/8/2012 7:03:19 PM
[Last Edit: 8/8/2012 7:04:49 PM by SkilletsUSMC]
Originally Posted By Strongbow:
Originally Posted By rtech:
Originally Posted By shadesofgrey:
While I like the sentiment, it's their property and their rules. They can choose to post the sign, I can choose to go somewhere else. At the risk of my life? You want to do this, you assume the liability as I have stated for the last 20 years or more. Your actions should have consequences. I'm all about property rights and have been since I started as a security guard in the 1970's. You have the right to toss anyone off your property, however, if you conduct business to the general population, things change just a little. If your place catches on fire and people die, you'll get sued, right or wrong. Someone slips on your property, you'll get sued. You deny me the right to protect myself, you assume all liability for my safety. I get shot or killed in your "gun-free" zone and you fail to protect me, you'll get sued. You prevent me from being able to protect myself and you fail to, you are culpable. I or my family will fucking sue you. Private property rights open to public access has its limits. This needs to go into effect and I've been saying this for dozens of years. Should you be able to sue a bar owner for exposure to second-hand smoke? That's sort of an apple/oranges argument, but to try and fit that scenario into the gun/no gun argument, you could only sue if they advertised a smoke-free environment and the cooks were all back in the kitchen smoking and you somehow didn't smell it over all the smells in the bar. If they didn't have a big sign saying NO SMOKING, then you couldn't sue. Edit: not that I would ever sue. |
|
|
103
Stealth Mode
Team Member
Joined: Sep 2006 FL, USA
Posts: 16799 Feedback: 100% (6) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/8/2012 7:04:10 PM
Originally Posted By Strongbow:
Originally Posted By rtech:
Originally Posted By shadesofgrey:
While I like the sentiment, it's their property and their rules. They can choose to post the sign, I can choose to go somewhere else. At the risk of my life? You want to do this, you assume the liability as I have stated for the last 20 years or more. Your actions should have consequences. I'm all about property rights and have been since I started as a security guard in the 1970's. You have the right to toss anyone off your property, however, if you conduct business to the general population, things change just a little. If your place catches on fire and people die, you'll get sued, right or wrong. Someone slips on your property, you'll get sued. You deny me the right to protect myself, you assume all liability for my safety. I get shot or killed in your "gun-free" zone and you fail to protect me, you'll get sued. You prevent me from being able to protect myself and you fail to, you are culpable. I or my family will fucking sue you. Private property rights open to public access has its limits. This needs to go into effect and I've been saying this for dozens of years. Should you be able to sue a bar owner for exposure to second-hand smoke? That's the SAME EXACT THING! Or not. I ignore no-gun signs all the time. Not exactly causing me to lose sleep. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2012 7:05:10 PM
Originally Posted By Strongbow Should you be able to sue a bar owner for exposure to second-hand smoke? Seeing how it's now illegal to smoke in a bar in Arizona, sure. I worked in bars for many years as a musician. I'm kind of allergic to smoke, sinuses flare up, congestion - just like having the flu. I did it but didn't enjoy or like it much. Eventually I got out of it. If you get cancer and could prove it all the way back to the source, sure you should be able to sue them. We all know smoking causes all kinds of health issues. If someone doesn't know that by now, God help them. I'm surprised they have the IQ points to breathe. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2012 7:07:47 PM
Originally Posted By 103: That's the SAME EXACT THING! Or not. I ignore no-gun signs all the time. Not exactly causing me to lose sleep. I also ignore no gun signs as well, but the only way we can combat the stupidity is to call them on it. Make them face the facts that their little utopian world think doesn't cut it. |
|
|
|
Ragin_Cajun
Cuddly as a Crowbar
Team Member
Joined: Mar 2006 LA, USA
Posts: 14332 Feedback: 100% (4) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/8/2012 7:09:44 PM
Originally Posted By shadesofgrey:
While I like the sentiment, it's their property and their rules. They can choose to post the sign, I can choose to go somewhere else. You're still civilly liable for what happens on your property no matter what sort of silly rules you want to make. In fact, if it can be demonstrated that those rules were a contributing factor in someone being harmed, you have increased your liability. My family has specific instructions to sue if anything happens to me in a" victim disarmament zone" because I wasn't able to defend myself. |
|
|
texassooner
Member
Team Member
Joined: Nov 2004 TX, USA
Posts: 2943 Feedback: 100% (155) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/8/2012 7:20:30 PM
Originally Posted By shadesofgrey:
While I like the sentiment, it's their property and their rules. They can choose to post the sign, I can choose to go somewhere else. I agree. If you don't like the rules, go somewhere else. That's the same thing I told an anti gunner that had a problem with my "reverse 3006" sign at a property I own. Knife cuts both ways. |
|
|
Cpt_Kirks
Starfleet Brewmaster
Team Member
Joined: Oct 2004 TN, USA
Posts: 18354 Feedback: 100% (1) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/8/2012 7:25:50 PM
[Last Edit: 8/8/2012 7:26:32 PM by Cpt_Kirks]
In Before the "Property Rights Trump The Constitution" assholes.
ETA: Too Late. My Bad.  |
|
|
Renegade13B
Curmudgeon
Life Member
Joined: Jun 2006 OR, USA
Posts: 15385 Feedback: 0% (0) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/8/2012 7:27:23 PM
That is one of the stupidest fucking ideas for a law I have ever seen.
Businesses should not liable for the actions of their customers (or non-customers). |
|
|
|
AR-10
Eye don't know.
Team Member
Joined: Nov 2001 IA, USA
Posts: 10228 Feedback: 100% (6) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/8/2012 7:29:35 PM
When Iowa went from "may issue" to "shall issue", people started freaking out. Cities and counties started banning firearms on city and county property. I live in one of those cities towns.
You can't carry here. You can't carry there. I cannot carry on ANY city or county property, which includes several parks. I told a friend on the city council that they had better put a metal detector at the entrance of city hall, and pay a police officer to stand at the back of the room whenever they have a council meeting. Because, they are now responsible for my safety as well as everyone else in the room. The ordinance they passed is in violation of state law, and they don't give a damn about violating that law, or providing protection for anyone. "If we make it illegal to bring a firearm in here, no one will bring a firearm in here". 
I hope the proposed law in the OP is passed. I'll rub some noses in it. |
|
|
Strongbow
A Boxer-Henry .45 caliber miracle
Team Member
Joined: Dec 2008 IN, USA
Posts: 12884 Feedback: 100% (18) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/8/2012 7:30:33 PM
[Last Edit: 8/8/2012 7:33:11 PM by Strongbow]
Originally Posted By SkilletsUSMC:
Originally Posted By Strongbow:
Originally Posted By rtech:
Originally Posted By shadesofgrey:
While I like the sentiment, it's their property and their rules. They can choose to post the sign, I can choose to go somewhere else. At the risk of my life? You want to do this, you assume the liability as I have stated for the last 20 years or more. Your actions should have consequences. I'm all about property rights and have been since I started as a security guard in the 1970's. You have the right to toss anyone off your property, however, if you conduct business to the general population, things change just a little. If your place catches on fire and people die, you'll get sued, right or wrong. Someone slips on your property, you'll get sued. You deny me the right to protect myself, you assume all liability for my safety. I get shot or killed in your "gun-free" zone and you fail to protect me, you'll get sued. You prevent me from being able to protect myself and you fail to, you are culpable. I or my family will fucking sue you. Private property rights open to public access has its limits. This needs to go into effect and I've been saying this for dozens of years. Should you be able to sue a bar owner for exposure to second-hand smoke? That's sort of an apple/oranges argument, but to try and fit that scenario into the gun/no gun argument, you could only sue if they advertised a smoke-free environment and the cooks were all back in the kitchen smoking and you somehow didn't smell it over all the smells in the bar. If they didn't have a big sign saying NO SMOKING, then you couldn't sue. Edit: not that I would ever sue. If the establishment has a sign saying "no guns" and you voluntarily go in unarmed, then what's your case? You VOLUNTARILY entered the premises unarmed. The risk is on YOU. |
|
|
|
Strongbow
A Boxer-Henry .45 caliber miracle
Team Member
Joined: Dec 2008 IN, USA
Posts: 12885 Feedback: 100% (18) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/8/2012 7:31:52 PM
Originally Posted By Ragin_Cajun:
Originally Posted By shadesofgrey:
While I like the sentiment, it's their property and their rules. They can choose to post the sign, I can choose to go somewhere else. You're still civilly liable for what happens on your property no matter what sort of silly rules you want to make. In fact, if it can be demonstrated that those rules were a contributing factor in someone being harmed, you have increased your liability. My family has specific instructions to sue if anything happens to me in a" victim disarmament zone" because I wasn't able to defend myself. Did you go there knowing you were unarmed? Were you FORCED to? It's on you bud. Vote with your dollars. |
|
|
|
03fxsti
Member
Team Member
Joined: Feb 2008 NE, USA
Posts: 1955 Feedback: 100% (2) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/8/2012 7:33:29 PM
Originally Posted By rtech: Fuckin right! If they want to make that rule they must be made to be responsible for the safety of consumers who cannot defend themselves there.Originally Posted By shadesofgrey: While I like the sentiment, it's their property and their rules. They can choose to post the sign, I can choose to go somewhere else. At the risk of my life? You want to do this, you assume the liability as I have stated for the last 20 years or more. Your actions should have consequences. I'm all about property rights and have been since I started as a security guard in the 1970's. You have the right to toss anyone off your property, however, if you conduct business to the general population, things change just a little. If your place catches on fire and people die, you'll get sued, right or wrong. Someone slips on your property, you'll get sued. You deny me the right to protect myself, you assume all liability for my safety. I get shot or killed in your "gun-free" zone and you fail to protect me, you'll get sued. You prevent me from being able to protect myself and you fail to, you are culpable. I or my family will fucking sue you. Private property rights open to public access has its limits.
This needs to go into effect and I've been saying this for dozens of years. |
|
|
03fxsti
Member
Team Member
Joined: Feb 2008 NE, USA
Posts: 1956 Feedback: 100% (2) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/8/2012 7:37:11 PM
Originally Posted By Strongbow: Apples and anvils. Second hand smoke may or may not cause harm, bullets on the other hand..........Originally Posted By rtech: Originally Posted By shadesofgrey: While I like the sentiment, it's their property and their rules. They can choose to post the sign, I can choose to go somewhere else. At the risk of my life? You want to do this, you assume the liability as I have stated for the last 20 years or more. Your actions should have consequences. I'm all about property rights and have been since I started as a security guard in the 1970's. You have the right to toss anyone off your property, however, if you conduct business to the general population, things change just a little. If your place catches on fire and people die, you'll get sued, right or wrong. Someone slips on your property, you'll get sued. You deny me the right to protect myself, you assume all liability for my safety. I get shot or killed in your "gun-free" zone and you fail to protect me, you'll get sued. You prevent me from being able to protect myself and you fail to, you are culpable. I or my family will fucking sue you. Private property rights open to public access has its limits.
This needs to go into effect and I've been saying this for dozens of years. Should you be able to sue a bar owner for exposure to second-hand smoke? |
|
|
Strongbow
A Boxer-Henry .45 caliber miracle
Team Member
Joined: Dec 2008 IN, USA
Posts: 12886 Feedback: 100% (18) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/8/2012 7:42:00 PM
Originally Posted By 03fxsti:
Originally Posted By Strongbow:
Apples and anvils. Second hand smoke may or may not cause harm, bullets on the other hand..........
Originally Posted By rtech:
Originally Posted By shadesofgrey:
While I like the sentiment, it's their property and their rules. They can choose to post the sign, I can choose to go somewhere else. At the risk of my life? You want to do this, you assume the liability as I have stated for the last 20 years or more. Your actions should have consequences. I'm all about property rights and have been since I started as a security guard in the 1970's. You have the right to toss anyone off your property, however, if you conduct business to the general population, things change just a little. If your place catches on fire and people die, you'll get sued, right or wrong. Someone slips on your property, you'll get sued. You deny me the right to protect myself, you assume all liability for my safety. I get shot or killed in your "gun-free" zone and you fail to protect me, you'll get sued. You prevent me from being able to protect myself and you fail to, you are culpable. I or my family will fucking sue you. Private property rights open to public access has its limits. This needs to go into effect and I've been saying this for dozens of years. Should you be able to sue a bar owner for exposure to second-hand smoke? Ah, but in being armed, you may or may not be able to stop an active shooter. So long as voluntarily enter an establishment unarmed, YOU take the responsbility. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2012 7:44:45 PM
Originally Posted By Smashy:
http://americanfreepress.net/?p=5448 In this light, Korwin has proposed a Gun-Free-Zone Liability Act in Arizona, where any business that establishes a gun-free zone would be fully liable for the harm it causes.
Well Duh! That's just common sense. Anyone with an IQ above 65 should expect that to be the case anywhere. Unfortunately, there are many who do not have the sense God gave a goose. (Yes. I understand that screws the math up.) |
|
|
|
bookertbab
Hey, group! Stay sick, Ova-dey.
Team Member
Joined: Jan 2002 OH, USA
Posts: 10164 Feedback: 100% (22) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/8/2012 7:44:54 PM
Tats a common sense law.
|
|
|
03fxsti
Member
Team Member
Joined: Feb 2008 NE, USA
Posts: 1958 Feedback: 100% (2) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/8/2012 7:48:07 PM
Originally Posted By Strongbow: You gotta start somewhere. Theres a reason there are no mass shootings at gun shows.Originally Posted By 03fxsti: Originally Posted By Strongbow: Apples and anvils. Second hand smoke may or may not cause harm, bullets on the other hand..........Originally Posted By rtech: Originally Posted By shadesofgrey: While I like the sentiment, it's their property and their rules. They can choose to post the sign, I can choose to go somewhere else. At the risk of my life? You want to do this, you assume the liability as I have stated for the last 20 years or more. Your actions should have consequences. I'm all about property rights and have been since I started as a security guard in the 1970's. You have the right to toss anyone off your property, however, if you conduct business to the general population, things change just a little. If your place catches on fire and people die, you'll get sued, right or wrong. Someone slips on your property, you'll get sued. You deny me the right to protect myself, you assume all liability for my safety. I get shot or killed in your "gun-free" zone and you fail to protect me, you'll get sued. You prevent me from being able to protect myself and you fail to, you are culpable. I or my family will fucking sue you. Private property rights open to public access has its limits.
This needs to go into effect and I've been saying this for dozens of years. Should you be able to sue a bar owner for exposure to second-hand smoke? Ah, but in being armed, you may or may not be able to stop an active shooter. So long as voluntarily enter an establishment unarmed, YOU take the responsbility. |
|
|
Strongbow
A Boxer-Henry .45 caliber miracle
Team Member
Joined: Dec 2008 IN, USA
Posts: 12887 Feedback: 100% (18) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/8/2012 7:51:25 PM
Originally Posted By 03fxsti:
Originally Posted By Strongbow:
You gotta start somewhere. Theres a reason there are no mass shootings at gun shows.
Originally Posted By 03fxsti:
Originally Posted By Strongbow:
Apples and anvils. Second hand smoke may or may not cause harm, bullets on the other hand..........
Originally Posted By rtech:
Originally Posted By shadesofgrey:
While I like the sentiment, it's their property and their rules. They can choose to post the sign, I can choose to go somewhere else. At the risk of my life? You want to do this, you assume the liability as I have stated for the last 20 years or more. Your actions should have consequences. I'm all about property rights and have been since I started as a security guard in the 1970's. You have the right to toss anyone off your property, however, if you conduct business to the general population, things change just a little. If your place catches on fire and people die, you'll get sued, right or wrong. Someone slips on your property, you'll get sued. You deny me the right to protect myself, you assume all liability for my safety. I get shot or killed in your "gun-free" zone and you fail to protect me, you'll get sued. You prevent me from being able to protect myself and you fail to, you are culpable. I or my family will fucking sue you. Private property rights open to public access has its limits. This needs to go into effect and I've been saying this for dozens of years. Should you be able to sue a bar owner for exposure to second-hand smoke? Ah, but in being armed, you may or may not be able to stop an active shooter. So long as voluntarily enter an establishment unarmed, YOU take the responsbility. I don;t disagree that having armed people is likely to discourage such things. But you make a choice when you enter an establishment that prohibits guns. No one forces you to go. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2012 7:55:16 PM
Originally Posted By shadesofgrey:
While I like the sentiment, it's their property and their rules. They can choose to post the sign, I can choose to go somewhere else. Exactly. Accordingly, employers and/or business owners should be able to require that employees perform sex acts on demand to keep their jobs. Any male boss should be able to order any female to perform sex acts for him, without regard to her being anyone’s wife, mother, or sister. Shoot, they (any male boss) should be able to demand the same from any male employee. After, such is not addressed in the Bill of Rights. I mean, if the right to bear arms can be infringed, certainly anything else is fair game. Yes, I am deadly serious. Either there are no limits to what an employer or business can demand, or people have certain inalienable rights. Pick one or the other. |
|
|
|
SkilletsUSMC
0311, not a cook...
Team Member
Joined: Jun 2005 WA, USA
Posts: 17819 Feedback: 100% (27) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/8/2012 7:55:43 PM
Originally Posted By Strongbow:
Originally Posted By Ragin_Cajun:
Originally Posted By shadesofgrey:
While I like the sentiment, it's their property and their rules. They can choose to post the sign, I can choose to go somewhere else. You're still civilly liable for what happens on your property no matter what sort of silly rules you want to make. In fact, if it can be demonstrated that those rules were a contributing factor in someone being harmed, you have increased your liability. My family has specific instructions to sue if anything happens to me in a" victim disarmament zone" because I wasn't able to defend myself. Did you go there knowing you were unarmed? Were you FORCED to? It's on you bud. Vote with your dollars. Lets take that same argument into something else like food allergies. Lets say my kid is allergic to some sort of food and I take him out to eat. There is a sign on the door that says "all food prepared without XYZ," so we assume the restaurant to be a safe place for my son to eat. Little did we know, the management made a mistake ad ordered the wrong food and it happens to contain the allergen, and my son gets sick and dies. I was not forced to eat at that restaurant, but they would be liable. If a business wants to advertise "NO GUNS" they better make sure it's a gun free environment. If they don't want that liability, they can simply take the signs down. |
|
|
texassooner
Member
Team Member
Joined: Nov 2004 TX, USA
Posts: 2946 Feedback: 100% (155) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/8/2012 7:56:56 PM
So we would all support legislation that makes the Property owner liable if they allow firearms and an innocent bystander gets accidently shot while someone is defending themselves?
Any reasonable law should work both ways, correct? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2012 7:57:08 PM
Originally Posted By Strongbow:
Originally Posted By rtech:
Originally Posted By shadesofgrey:
While I like the sentiment, it's their property and their rules. They can choose to post the sign, I can choose to go somewhere else. At the risk of my life? You want to do this, you assume the liability as I have stated for the last 20 years or more. Your actions should have consequences. I'm all about property rights and have been since I started as a security guard in the 1970's. You have the right to toss anyone off your property, however, if you conduct business to the general population, things change just a little. If your place catches on fire and people die, you'll get sued, right or wrong. Someone slips on your property, you'll get sued. You deny me the right to protect myself, you assume all liability for my safety. I get shot or killed in your "gun-free" zone and you fail to protect me, you'll get sued. You prevent me from being able to protect myself and you fail to, you are culpable. I or my family will fucking sue you. Private property rights open to public access has its limits. This needs to go into effect and I've been saying this for dozens of years. Should you be able to sue a bar owner for exposure to second-hand smoke? Actually, in today's legal environment, you probably could. |
|
|
|
Renegade13B
Curmudgeon
Life Member
Joined: Jun 2006 OR, USA
Posts: 15388 Feedback: 0% (0) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/8/2012 7:57:41 PM
Originally Posted By KYVENOM:
Originally Posted By shadesofgrey:
While I like the sentiment, it's their property and their rules. They can choose to post the sign, I can choose to go somewhere else. Exactly. Accordingly, employers and/or business owners should be able to require that employees perform sex acts on demand to keep their jobs. Any male boss should be able to order any female to perform sex acts for him, without regard to her being anyone’s wife, mother, or sister. Shoot, they (any male boss) should be able to demand the same from any male employee. After, such is not addressed in the Bill of Rights. I mean, if the right to bear arms can be infringed, certainly anything else is fair game. Yes, I am deadly serious. Either there are no limits to what an employer or business can demand, or people have certain inalienable rights. Pick one or the other. The BoR protects people from the government, not people from other people. Try again. |
|
|
|
texassooner
Member
Team Member
Joined: Nov 2004 TX, USA
Posts: 2947 Feedback: 100% (155) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/8/2012 7:59:41 PM
Originally Posted By KYVENOM:
Originally Posted By Strongbow:
Originally Posted By rtech:
Originally Posted By shadesofgrey:
While I like the sentiment, it's their property and their rules. They can choose to post the sign, I can choose to go somewhere else. At the risk of my life? You want to do this, you assume the liability as I have stated for the last 20 years or more. Your actions should have consequences. I'm all about property rights and have been since I started as a security guard in the 1970's. You have the right to toss anyone off your property, however, if you conduct business to the general population, things change just a little. If your place catches on fire and people die, you'll get sued, right or wrong. Someone slips on your property, you'll get sued. You deny me the right to protect myself, you assume all liability for my safety. I get shot or killed in your "gun-free" zone and you fail to protect me, you'll get sued. You prevent me from being able to protect myself and you fail to, you are culpable. I or my family will fucking sue you. Private property rights open to public access has its limits. This needs to go into effect and I've been saying this for dozens of years. Should you be able to sue a bar owner for exposure to second-hand smoke? Actually, in today's legal environment, you probably could. Yes, but for what damages and how are you going to prove that the cigarette smoke from that bar caused it |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2012 8:01:56 PM
[Last Edit: 8/8/2012 8:02:19 PM by KYVENOM]
Originally Posted By Strongbow:
Originally Posted By SkilletsUSMC:
Originally Posted By Strongbow:
Originally Posted By rtech:
Originally Posted By shadesofgrey:
While I like the sentiment, it's their property and their rules. They can choose to post the sign, I can choose to go somewhere else. At the risk of my life? You want to do this, you assume the liability as I have stated for the last 20 years or more. Your actions should have consequences. I'm all about property rights and have been since I started as a security guard in the 1970's. You have the right to toss anyone off your property, however, if you conduct business to the general population, things change just a little. If your place catches on fire and people die, you'll get sued, right or wrong. Someone slips on your property, you'll get sued. You deny me the right to protect myself, you assume all liability for my safety. I get shot or killed in your "gun-free" zone and you fail to protect me, you'll get sued. You prevent me from being able to protect myself and you fail to, you are culpable. I or my family will fucking sue you. Private property rights open to public access has its limits. This needs to go into effect and I've been saying this for dozens of years. Should you be able to sue a bar owner for exposure to second-hand smoke? That's sort of an apple/oranges argument, but to try and fit that scenario into the gun/no gun argument, you could only sue if they advertised a smoke-free environment and the cooks were all back in the kitchen smoking and you somehow didn't smell it over all the smells in the bar. If they didn't have a big sign saying NO SMOKING, then you couldn't sue. Edit: not that I would ever sue. If the establishment has a sign saying "no guns" and you voluntarily go in unarmed, then what's your case? You VOLUNTARILY entered the premises unarmed. The risk is on YOU. I agree. Of course I am also willing to open my own business and require everyone who works for me to performs sex acts to my desires if they want to keep their jobs. If they don't like it, they can get a job elsewhere. Isn't that they way it should be everywhere? Well, at least it certainly more reasonable than expecting people to give up the most basic of all rights. |
|
|
|
Strongbow
A Boxer-Henry .45 caliber miracle
Team Member
Joined: Dec 2008 IN, USA
Posts: 12888 Feedback: 100% (18) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/8/2012 8:03:42 PM
Originally Posted By SkilletsUSMC:
Originally Posted By Strongbow:
Originally Posted By Ragin_Cajun:
Originally Posted By shadesofgrey:
While I like the sentiment, it's their property and their rules. They can choose to post the sign, I can choose to go somewhere else. You're still civilly liable for what happens on your property no matter what sort of silly rules you want to make. In fact, if it can be demonstrated that those rules were a contributing factor in someone being harmed, you have increased your liability. My family has specific instructions to sue if anything happens to me in a" victim disarmament zone" because I wasn't able to defend myself. Did you go there knowing you were unarmed? Were you FORCED to? It's on you bud. Vote with your dollars. Lets take that same argument into something else like food allergies. Lets say my kid is allergic to some sort of food and I take him out to eat. There is a sign on the door that says "all food prepared without XYZ," so we assume the restaurant to be a safe place for my son to eat. Little did we know, the management made a mistake ad ordered the wrong food and it happens to contain the allergen, and my son gets sick and dies. I was not forced to eat at that restaurant, but they would be liable. If a business wants to advertise "NO GUNS" they better make sure it's a gun free environment. If they don't want that liability, they can simply take the signs down. How does that follow? They are exercising their right to tell you not to carry on their premises. You can either agree to their terms (knowing the risks), or not. That's up to YOU. This is a really dumb idea. And in your example, you would need to show negligence on their part. In the case of a mass shooting, it would be someone else committing the action. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2012 8:05:28 PM
Originally Posted By Strongbow: If the establishment has a sign saying "no guns" and you voluntarily go in unarmed, then what's your case? You VOLUNTARILY entered the premises unarmed. The risk is on YOU. You go open a business and do just this. Pray you don't get sued. I'll sit back and eat popcorn and watch the show. Frankly, I'd sue the shit out of the theater if I were injured and survived, more so if I was a family member of the victims who didn't survive. Fuck them and their bullshit excuse, "It's not MY fault a mass shooting happened in my place of business..." "You chose to come in here after I don't want your icky guns in MY place..." This needs to be enacted in every state, but not on the federal level. Start holding people accountable for stupidity. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2012 8:10:35 PM
Originally Posted By Renegade13B:
Originally Posted By KYVENOM:
Originally Posted By shadesofgrey:
While I like the sentiment, it's their property and their rules. They can choose to post the sign, I can choose to go somewhere else. Exactly. Accordingly, employers and/or business owners should be able to require that employees perform sex acts on demand to keep their jobs. Any male boss should be able to order any female to perform sex acts for him, without regard to her being anyone’s wife, mother, or sister. Shoot, they (any male boss) should be able to demand the same from any male employee. After, such is not addressed in the Bill of Rights. I mean, if the right to bear arms can be infringed, certainly anything else is fair game. Yes, I am deadly serious. Either there are no limits to what an employer or business can demand, or people have certain inalienable rights. Pick one or the other. The BoR protects people from the government, not people from other people. Try again. Not a problem. No government agency shall do such. So, I know gun laws are BS and I view them as immoral. IF they did the right thing, are horoned the 2nd, how do you thing private business would in making such stupid laws? In any case, I do understand your point. You would at least have to support a far less offensive concept such as, "employers and/or business owners should be able to require that employees perform sex acts on demand to keep their jobs. Any male boss should be able to order any female to perform sex acts for him, without regard to her being anyone’s wife, mother, or sister. Shoot, they (any male boss) should be able to demand the same from any male employee." I could see how that would be far more reasonable. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2012 8:12:13 PM
[Last Edit: 8/8/2012 8:13:25 PM by KYVENOM]
Originally Posted By rtech:
Originally Posted By Strongbow:
If the establishment has a sign saying "no guns" and you voluntarily go in unarmed, then what's your case? You VOLUNTARILY entered the premises unarmed. The risk is on YOU. You go open a business and do just this. Pray you don't get sued. I'll sit back and eat popcorn and watch the show. Frankly, I'd sue the shit out of the theater if I were injured and survived, more so if I was a family member of the victims who didn't survive. Fuck them and their bullshit excuse, "It's not MY fault a mass shooting happened in my place of business..." "You chose to come in here after I don't want your icky guns in MY place..." This needs to be enacted in every state, but not on the federal level. Start holding people accountable for stupidity. No kidding. Why it doesn't happen everyday is beyond me. I take that back. I know people are flaming idiots. |
|
|
|
SkilletsUSMC
0311, not a cook...
Team Member
Joined: Jun 2005 WA, USA
Posts: 17820 Feedback: 100% (27) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/8/2012 8:12:57 PM
Originally Posted By Strongbow:
Originally Posted By SkilletsUSMC:
Originally Posted By Strongbow:
Originally Posted By Ragin_Cajun:
Originally Posted By shadesofgrey:
While I like the sentiment, it's their property and their rules. They can choose to post the sign, I can choose to go somewhere else. You're still civilly liable for what happens on your property no matter what sort of silly rules you want to make. In fact, if it can be demonstrated that those rules were a contributing factor in someone being harmed, you have increased your liability. My family has specific instructions to sue if anything happens to me in a" victim disarmament zone" because I wasn't able to defend myself. Did you go there knowing you were unarmed? Were you FORCED to? It's on you bud. Vote with your dollars. Lets take that same argument into something else like food allergies. Lets say my kid is allergic to some sort of food and I take him out to eat. There is a sign on the door that says "all food prepared without XYZ," so we assume the restaurant to be a safe place for my son to eat. Little did we know, the management made a mistake ad ordered the wrong food and it happens to contain the allergen, and my son gets sick and dies. I was not forced to eat at that restaurant, but they would be liable. If a business wants to advertise "NO GUNS" they better make sure it's a gun free environment. If they don't want that liability, they can simply take the signs down. How does that follow? They are exercising their right to tell you not to carry on their premises. You can either agree to their terms (knowing the risks), or not. That's up to YOU. This is a really dumb idea. And in your example, you would need to show negligence on their part. In the case of a mass shooting, it would be someone else committing the action. In my scenario it would be pretty easy to prove negligence since they advertise to be an allergen free environment. In the case of the guns, they promised "NO GUNS" and they did not deliver. Had there been no signs, I would carried...blahh blahh. I don't want to see any business be held for a BS law suit and the best way to do that would be to either have metal detectors or to just take down the signs and jab the "we will be held responsible for crimes committed on these premises" policy. That's a win-win for everyone. |
|
ARCHIVED
" - substandard
